their pursuit anymore because were mad at the america's cup. we agreed certain obligations. this is not some sort of agreeing to buy back some money. this is basic obligation of the agreements. it's also not an unreasonable obligation. in fact, i don't speak for all my colleagues, but i suspect there are number of people sitting in this chamber who may be supporting supervisor kim's ultimate legislation that goes further in terms of potentially turning this into permanent restrictions. so, would this does it will restricted as pres. chiu said, for only a month. just to be very clear if we don't vote on this today then it's going to go into after the recess and doesn't take effect until 30 days after the mayor signs it and then it's after everything he becomes moot at that point. in

terms of the legalities, including ideally we would have more information at this point. i know there's been a lot of back-and-forth with the faa. i do feel comfortable in terms of the information that we have received that we are on solid ground. again, this is a very brief period of time this will be in effect so i am comfortable supporting this today. >> supervisor can >> by the way, i do support a citywide ban on these aerial advertisements. mainly because we've heard so much for a residence about how standard banner towing aircraft flies very low in a neighborhood particularly, the one around the giant stadium. often you will have for banner planes towing several hours before giants games going in circles, and it causes a lot of destruction and noise pollution in this area and of course distraction. i think there's a lot of legal questions which is why on monday i want to make sure we do legislation that we

get it right. were certainly taken on legal liability and risk that we don't fully understand. i mean be ready to support this next week when i'm not ready to support this today. >> thank you if there's no other questions we have a motion for the moment from pres. chiu. mdm. clerk and we have a roll call on the amendment >> yes. the notion was moved by supervisor he already should have roll call >> >>[roll call] >> this is a note on the moment. >> >>[roll call]

there are 10 eyes and one no >> thank you. mdm. clerk, my understanding is this what we continued for a week >> no mr. chair. i believe this item will be voting today on and it passes it will go straight % >> can we have a roll call on the ordinance as amended? judgeship on item 39 as amended >> >>[roll call] >> there are five eyes and six nose ship the item does not

pass. thank you. never a dull moment at the board. item 40 >> item 40 is a motion approving the inclusionary affordable housing program ordinance >> will call >> on item 40 >>[roll call] >> there are 11 eyes should motion is approved item 41

>> item for one is ordinance admitting the administrative code to advisory committee into established powers and duties >> supervisor compass >> i'll be very brief i want to thank the members of the rules committee for forwarding this item unanimously with the recommendation. i also want to thank my cosponsors supervisor winner, opelousas, kim ma yi and chiu. this legislation is supported by mayor lee and how i think the mere for his work on this. it establishes the airport facilities naming advisory committee which will hold a series of public meetings to gather information and public input on the naming of terminals and other facilities at the san francisco international airport. one of the things it puts us on record as the designating that one terminal at the airport will be named after former supervisor harvey milk. there'll be five committee members appointed by the mayor for appointed by the

board of supervisors, and the goal here is to really not only honor harvey milk but images of the brings a different committees throughout the city together by recognizing that other members of those communities may be recognized. so thank you very much a ask for your support >> rollcall vote on the set of >> on item 41 >> >>[roll call] >> there are 11 eyes >> the ordinances passed on first reading. item producers of item 42 motion confirming rules committee nomination of them pointing ending april 30, 2017 to the police commissioner >> can we take this on same call without objection this

motion is approved. why don't we move to our community reports. mdm. clerk can you call when we call ashley when we call first community item 51 >> item 51 was considered by the rules committee and regular meeting on thursday, july 18 and was forwarded to the board as a committee reports. item 51 is an ordinance authorizing settlement of a lawsuit filed by rosemary bosque against the city for approximately $50,000. this lawsuit was filed on the 14th in san francisco superior court >> i understand we may need to recuse several of our colleagues. that a motion to recuse mdm. clerk we need to do separate motions? >> which do separate motions mr. pres. >> first motion for recusal supervisor he could have a motion to that effect? motion by supervisor compass second by supervisor mark. supervisor e.g. when to step out for a

moment set off the floor. you be back in a moment. colleagues, could we have a roll call vote on a motion to recuse >> actually, i'm sorry we can get permission to without objection. rollcall now we need a motion to recuse supervisor kim. motion by supervisor we are second by supervisor avalos. supervisor kim is ruby recuse. ella stegall caught is ordinance should have on item 51 chev >> >>[roll call] >> there are nine eyes. >> this ordinance is passed on first reading. item 52 >> i understand we're a couple

additional reduces for this item. could a motion to excuse are immediately delete item 52 >> item 52 ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by jesse j berg was shot conley against the city for $75,000 filed on october excuse me april 8, 2011 in us district court northern district of california. >> colleagues can enter first motion to excuse the present supervisor agreed without objection she should be excused and al qaeda motion to excuse supervisor:? motion by supervisor e second by supervisor compass without objection supervisor: is recuse. now was take a roll call vote >> item 52 >> >>[roll call]

>> there are nine eyes >> the ordinances passed on the street. item 53 >> item 53 and ordinance authorizing settlement of a lawsuit filed by local search association against the city for $85,000. this lawsuit was filed on june 7, 2011 us district court for the northern district of california. >> rollcall vote >> item 53 >>[roll call] >> >> there are 11 eyes >> ordinance passed on the first read. >> item 54 ordinance authorizing settlement by

colette adams irving for three or $50,000. the lawsuit was filed march 15, 2011 in san francisco superior court judge of this ordinance is passed on the first read. >> next item item settlement of lawsuit filed by maria camacho against the city for $50,000. the lawsuit was filed on march 7, 2012 in center cisco superior court >> this ordinance is passed on the first read >> item 56 settlement of a lawsuit filed by maria d'agostino against the city for $135,000. this lawsuit was filed on june 15, 2012 in san francisco superior court >> this ordinance is passed on for street. >> item 57 ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by way vivian klee against the city for $30,000. this lawsuit was filed on november 3, 2011 instead residual superior court >> this ordinance is passed on the first read. etc.

>> item 58 resolution approving the proposed settlement of claim filed by travelers insurance company and connie karen against the city for $43,000. this claim was filed on november 15, 2011 >> this resolution is adopted. next item >> item 59 resolution approving settlement of the unmitigated claim in favor of 300 spiel though the venture against the city and on litigated claim in favor of the city against 300 spiel realty venture >> this resolution is adopted. next item >> item 60 resolution approving settlement of the unmitigated initiative enforcement action filed by san francisco bay regional water quality control board against symphysis go imposing about the $51,000. >> this resolution is adopted >> item 61 is a resolution approving settlement of an unmitigated unmitigated claim filed by donald wickham against the city for $125,000 filed october 22, 2011. august 9, 2012 and march 6, 2013. >> this resolution is adopted. item 61 is not in front of the spirit will considered at next week's board meeting. mdm.

clerk item 62 >> now moving to item 62 >> item 63 through 66 was considered by the land-use economic of element committee at a regular meeting on monday, july 22 and forwarded to the board and committee reports. item 63 is an ordinance amending the environment code by repealing the yellow pages distribution pilot program >> this ordinance is passed on first read. item 64 >> item 64 ordinance amending the planning code regarding the mission of coke beverage special use district and commercial transit just to control. >> colleagues same house and call this ordinance is passed on for street. regarding past items 55 and 56. the school to local for introductions >> supervisor avalos your first introduced the items >> think. mdm. clerk. will start with a few items of introduction to one i'm calling

for a hearing on potential strike at bart. as we all know part is when the primary modes for carrying commuters around the bay area in san francisco. 40% of our bart ridership uses for downtown stations in our downtown stations of san francisco and montgomery civic center and powell. also balboa park station that in my district adjacent to centralize or ease district carnets huge ridership as well. it has the largest ridership in downtown san francisco. the bay area council has estimated that the cost of each day, the cost of a strike is about $73 million in back to the bay area. which i think is a huge cost to our local economy. the continuation of the strike will really this portion only impact san francisco but certainly a major impact on the bay area. i think it makes sense that we actually look at how the impact of the

strike would affect us. and how we can help make sure labor negotiations are moving forward. i know we have a break moving forward but just in case we get back from the break in september and are still strike going on, i would like to call for a hearing. also hearing needs to look at and address some of the practices that have been used by part especially hiring tomahawk who actually has had a history potentially of being a unionbusting negotiator as using tactics that are actually not towards settlement, but towards exasperation exacerbation of people in the goshen protocol perspective critical that hearing after the break. another item we have for introduction is calling for august 17 two because cayuga park day cayuga park has undergone due to voter approved

bonds transformation in its levels and overall part under i'm very excited to be coming back from my vacation in southern california just for the day to actually celebrate the opening of the park which will happen on august 17. the park also has a great exhibit of a local folk artist who is a gardener there at the part. a lot of his work has been preserved in a new park that's going to be made. the park will also be accessible for seniors and for youth and for children. it will be a wonderful opening i'm looking to forward to that event and have a resolution calling for august 17 to be cayuga park day. also, my big item for introduction is items have been working on with colleagues and community groups for a number of months, perhaps over a year. it is our due process for all ordinance good as you know i said the

immigration customs enforcement agency initiated secure committee deportation program known as starting in 2008 enforces unfair program on our city in 2010. despite strong objections from our local board and are sure at that time. under anyone is booked into the sheriff's custody will have their finger prints sent over to ices database for deportation purposes. after prints are sent eyes ask local government to hold anyone if things might be able to be deported biondo on their time they're eligible for release at local expense. that means that ice is asking us to keep people beyond the time there eligible for release. ashley at our own expense. i had to repeat that. these are purposes for deportation. this is a dragnet so broad that even citizens have been swept up along the victims when this is a crime. because it targets people

before they've actually have their day in court is in stairs witnesses and survivors of domestic violence who are often arrested right along with their abusers. particularly vulnerable are those that have subject to unconstitutional or erroneous arrests in recent study has shown that in four major cities invited racial profiling by law enforcement. that study was conducted by the department of urban planning and policy the university of illinois in chicago. it's called insecure communities: latino perceptions of and when the finding shows survey results indicate the increased involvement of police and immigration enforcement has significantly heightened the fears of many latinos have of the police contributing to their social isolation and exacerbating their mistrust of law enforcement authority. there are many findings that will that. even legal

residents have a concern about reporting crime that they feel people who they feel might be immigrants could get actually caught up in the ice deportation system. i will go on. as of 2011 and 2012 the sheriff department has turnover about 1200 people in those you. that's actually about 100 people per month there been turned over to the immigration system because of icy decanters. we know that because of all the proceedings of ice there've been 74 duplications things 784 san franciscans with their mothers fathers daughters sons neighbors residents, colleagues, and maybe even your fellow students have been deported because of ice policies. as our federal representative debate pathways

for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country, ice continues to deport aspiring us citizens by the droves. it is incumbent upon us here in san francisco to hold immigrant rights and uphold basic principles of due process, due process from arbitrary denial of liberty and equality under the law. that will give us much safer. the fate of too many lives, too many families, too many children are at stake. the fact is public safety for all san franciscans is compromised when public trust in our justice system is undermined. i local law enforcement agencies rely on the cooperation of victims and witnesses of crime but has created within the immigrant community a stronger communicator with local law-enforcement agencies. as university of the americas. 36% of our residents are foreign-born. district 11, which i represent, are 50% immigrants. today i'm proud to introduce the due process for

all ordinance. it would prohibit law-enforcement officials from detaining individual solely on the basis of their immigration status. after they become eligible for release from custody. i am honored to have the support and cosponsorship of many of my colleagues, supervisors breed, campos, chu, colin, kim, mark, any. they do so much. cosponsorship. it is such an honor to have your support and many people in the community of san francisco that are so glad to have your commitment on this piece of legislation. as you know, colleagues, california atty. gen. pamela harris has affirmed ice dinners are merely request local enforcement and therefore local authorities are not obligated to comply. there were merely request. these hold our issue without basic standards of proof. they violate a cherished principle at the heart of our legal system . we don't hold people without

a legal reason for doing so. this ordinance will uphold due process and legal treatment of all our residents regardless of their immigration status. it would sure immigrants who may be victims or witnesses of crimes will not be deterred from cooperation while with our law enforcement agencies for fear of deportation. the legislation will be supported by a wide range of civil and immigrant rights organizations as was the cities rights commission. law-enforcement agencies including the sheriff's department and the public defender. other jurisdictions with high concentration of immigrants such as the city of berkeley and richmond as well as santa clara county in california have similar policies in place. as do the county on or chicago is located at washington dc. the ordinance will stop divide

family and rebuild trust between the witnesses and immigrants and legal community policing efforts. together with this policy, we can strengthen trust in our local law-enforcement and improve public safety and advance our most cherished values and constitutional rights by due process for all. lastly, i want to thank the many people who supported this legislation from the community. we honor today symphysis go defense committee and other organizations i like to mention as well. asian-americans advancing justice firmly known as asian law caucus. angela chan with them has been a great advocate for this ordinance. the bill of rights defense committee. the california policy center. just cause, central american resource center. chinese for affirmative action, communities united against violence, lower street community services, immigrant legal resource center immigrant rights commission, ross essentially call, lawyers committee for civil rights,

the national lawyers guild, and people organized to him, employment rights, otherwise known as power, symphysis go organizing project, department of public policy, concerns of the san francisco archdiocese, young workers united. many labor organizers like local 87 of sei you have also been big part of this effort as well. i also would like to give a really great thanks to deputy city attorney alicia cabrera for her work in the world converging in helping to craft this ordinance. of course in my office racquel gandhi s (sp?) for her great work as well. we've also received terminus amount of input from the dist. atty. and we hope to have as a supporter in the coming days as well as chief public defender who will give us input on this legislation. the da have not yet provided a letter of support which are hoping to get in the coming weeks. colleagues, again, thank you so much for your support and i

look forward to resuming discussion on this item when we get back from our break. thank you >> supervisor avalos. thank you. supervisor campos >> thank you. i just want to take this opportunity to add some comments to the piece of legislation that supervisor avalos has introduced. you know, i supervisors we introduced many things on a weekly or monthly basis and annually and we as a board have certainly don't with some important issues. i do believe, though, if you look at where this piece of legislation that's in the history of the sport, i do think this is one of the most significant pieces of legislation that we have seen introduced in the last two years. the reason is that it deals with a larger issue and a larger movement. it is something that impacts the country as a whole, which is how the immigrant community is being treated by this country.

what we have seen is that in the context of that history of how this immigrant community has been treated, was a turning point in that treatment. was a republican administration then followed by democratic administration barack obama of all presidents, who imposed a direct draconian program that essentially goes after people in terms turns them over to immigration that's making local jurisdictions and arm of immigration irrespective of what crime, if any crime, they committed. the very moment that they have any interaction with the criminal justice system at that moment. it doesn't matter whether they did something or not, they are turned over. the implications of that are pretty serious and it's really hard to overestimate them. the most important application is that it really goes against the very

fundamental nature, fundamental principle of due process, which goes to the heart of the 14th amendment to the u.s. constitution. the idea that it doesn't matter whether you did or didn't do something, by the very nature that you are undocumented, you're going to be reported. that goes against the very basic principles that are at the heart of the constitution. but the second piece of it, which i think for me as a supervisor, is the most disturbing, beyond the ethics of the first beast, is that it becomes a public safety issue. you know, keith brown when he was la chief of police, talked about how the principle of century, the idea that local jurisdictions are not in the business of enforcing immigration law is really a public safety issue. it is in

the interest of the entire community for immigrants to actually feel comfortable coming to law enforcement and reporting crime, reporting crime if they were the victims of it or reporting crime is a witnesses to it. whenever an undocumented person becomes afraid to go to law enforcement and report a crime that they witnessed or report a crime that they were the victim of, that by failing to report that they're making all of us less safe. there are examples and pretty heinous crimes, homicides in los angeles and jurisdictions throughout the country that were solved because undocumented people came forward, reported what they saw, and eventually the perpetrator was actually killing people was caught. if that undocumented person was not comfortable enough in coming forward that perpetrator would have never been found. that is why this is such an important issue. it has made the existence of a secure committee so-called secure community, has made our

neighborhoods less safe. there is a sentiment out there that no matter how well-intentioned local enforcement is, and we are a century city and symphysis, by the very system is so secure communities program, that is making people in these immigrant undocumented committees afraid to step four. afraid to step forward and you have examples of people jaywalking and because of that active jaywalking being reported to immigration. so, i think this is a very significant piece of legislation. i want to thank supervisor avalos and his staff pretty amazing work that they have done. i think the fact that your arty have eight members of this board supporting this i think sends a very strong strong message. i'm grateful to not only supervisor avalos for his leadership but for the entire immigrant rights

community. also, the other communities domestic violence committed. i see beverly upton here. it is a public safety issue. i am so proud that it's not just one community stand by itself, but is the entirety of the san francisco diversity that saying we care about everyone and when ice goes after my neighbor they're really going after me. when my neighbor is afraid to come forward and report crime, that makes me less safe. my hope is that we can get to a point where this will be a unanimous vote at the board of supervisors. i am hopeful, and i think that san francisco needs to be the city that stands against we need to be the city that says secure committees goes against every value that we as a country have and it certainly goes against the idea